This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Background and Objectives Surgical and neurostimulator treatments are effective for reducing seizure burden in selected individuals living with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). We aimed to determine the presence and key model determinants for cost-effectiveness of these interventions, compared with medical management alone, to assist with decisions about resource allocation.
Methods A systematic literature search was conducted on June 1, 2022, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis database. Included studies were economic evaluations in adult DRE cohorts, comparing surgical and neurostimulator treatments (vagus nerve stimulation [VNS], responsive neurostimulation [RNS], and deep brain stimulation [DBS]) vs medical management alone and reporting cost-benefit analysis, cost-utility, or cost-effectiveness. Exclusion criteria were studies with pediatric cohorts and those published in a language other than English. Three independent reviewers screened, extracted, and assessed data against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist, and a fourth reviewer adjudicated discrepancies.
Results Ten studies met inclusion criteria. Seven studies evaluated epilepsy surgery, and 3 evaluated neurostimulation treatments. All relevant studies established that epilepsy surgery is a cost-effective intervention compared with medical management alone, for quality-adjusted life-years and seizure freedom at 2 and 5 years. All relevant studies found neurostimulator treatments to be potentially cost-effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with lower ICER indicating greater cost-effectiveness, was reported for 9 studies and varied between GBP £3,013 and US $61,333. Cost adaptation revealed ICERs from US $170 to US $121,726. Key model determinants included, but were not limited to, improved surgical outcomes and quality of life, reduced surgical and presurgical evaluation costs, higher rates of surgical eligibility after referral and evaluation, epilepsy subtype, less expensive neurostimulator devices with improved longevity, and cost analysis strategy used in the analysis.
Discussion There is consistent evidence that epilepsy surgery is a cost-effective treatment of eligible candidates with DRE. Limited evidence suggests that VNS, RNS, and DBS may be cost-effective therapies for DRE, although more health economic evaluations alongside prospective clinical trials are needed to validate these findings.
Study Registration Information PROSPERO CRD42021278436.
Glossary
- ASM=
- antiseizure medication;
- CHEERS=
- Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards;
- DBS=
- deep brain stimulation;
- DRE=
- drug-resistant epilepsy;
- ICER=
- incremental cost-effectiveness ratio;
- ILAE=
- International League Against Epilepsy;
- QALY=
- quality-adjusted life-year;
- RCT=
- randomized control trial;
- RNS=
- repetitive nerve stimulation;
- VNS=
- vagus (or vagal) nerve stimulation;
- WTP=
- willingness to pay;
- YOLL=
- years of life lived;
- YOLS=
- years of life saved
Footnotes
Go to Neurology.org/N for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.
Submitted and externally peer reviewed. The handling editor was Associate Editor Barbara Jobst, MD, PhD, FAAN.
- Received September 7, 2022.
- Accepted in final form January 18, 2023.
- © 2023 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
